Approved Opinions for the Week of September 5, 2016

06-2-1184 State v. Amboy Nat’l Bank Account No. Xxx-118, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Espinosa, J.A.D.) (29 pp.) This civil forfeiture action concerns the seizure of $846,000, $722,000 of which represented “entry fees” to participate in sports pools. The claimant admitted operating sports pools for approximately twenty years but denied the pools were illegal. The New Jersey Constitution prohibits the Legislature from authorizing gambling except through referendum and several exceptions established by the Constitution. The pools operated by claimant did not fall within any of these exceptions. We further conclude the State met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) there was a direct causal connection between the money seized and the promotion of gambling and (2) the promotion of gambling involved constituted an indictable offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:37-2. We further reject claimant’s argument that the court erred in failing to allocate the funds seized between illegal and legal purposes, noting claimant failed to present sufficient credible evidence in response to the State’s motion for summary judgment to permit such an allocation. Finally, we reject claimant’s argument that the State violated the notice provision of N.J.S.A. 2C:64-3 by failing to give notice to the players whose entry fees had been deposited into the joint accounts held by claimant and were part of the funds seized. (Approved for Publication)

07-02-1171 McCormick v. State, N.J. Super.( Sabatino, P.J.A.D.) ( App. Div.) (20 pp.) An injured plaintiff who alleges that he received inadequate medical care while housed in a government facility cannot avoid his obligation to serve an Affidavit of Merit (AOM) under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 by naming only the public entity as a defendant in his complaint and not suing the individual licensed professionals who provided the allegedly inadequate care. We extend the holding of Shamrock Lacrosse, Inc. v. Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP, 416 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2010) (requiring an AOM where a legal malpractice complaint named only law firms as defendants and not their associate, the licensed attorney who acted negligently) to cases involving public entity defendants and involving other forms of malpractice. (Approved for Publication)